Underlined itemsprovide links to other pages on this site, or to other web sites.
This page is updated periodically. To receive an email notice of updates, please register at theContact/Subscribepage.

AESTHETICS & THEORYARCHIVE: CONVERSATION

Other archives can be accessed through the sub-menu above.

Theory & Aestheticsarticles will be added to this section only when requested by at least three individuals.
The appropriate section of theContact/Subscribe page may be used to make a request.

CONVERSATION WITH AN ARTWORK

(With apologies to gardeners and landscape designers.)

Copyright Frederic C. Kaplan 2010

Players:

Art Work (a rather mysterious and ephemeral entity)

Curious Person (one with definite ideas about what in art is worthy of love)

J.Q. Critic (rationality amid madness)

Act I

[An empty room]

Art Work (AW):
Hello.

Curious Person (CP):
Huh? Who is that?

AW:
Oh, sorry. I didnt mean to startle you.

CP:
Thats quite all right. Where are you?

AW:
Right here, all around you.

CP:
But, I cant see you. Are you one of those ironic puzzles meant to bewilder?

AW:
Not at all. I suggest that you go read the plaque over there.

CP:
Very well. Lets see. It says, A.N. Artist, Air, 2010. Air in room. I guess that means this is something called Air made by A.N. Artist in 2010.

AW:
There. It should be as clear as, well, as air. I am an artwork.

CP:
I've never seen an artwork made of air before. Actually, Im not seeing one now. Ive always understood that an artwork is made to be looked at. In fact, art wants to be looked at before all else.

AW:
That is a fallacy. An artwork wants to be thought about before all else. It is what an artwork is about, not its material form that makes it art. After all, I am an artwork so I should know.

CP:
One would think so. On the other hand, I'm an art lover. As an art lover I should know what it is about art that I love, and what I love is to look at it.

AW:
Barbaric.

CP:
No, its human. Ah, here comes an old friend of mine, J.Q. Critic. Hello, JQ.

J.Q. Critic (JQ):
Hello, Curious Person. And hello to you, too, Art Work.

CP:
You know this entity?

AW:
Well, of course JQ knows me. We've been friends for a long time.

JQ:
It is delightful to see you both, and in the same place! I wondered when you two would finally meet, and now here you are.

AW:
Dear friend, we have been discussing whether an artwork is an object to be looked at or something to be thought about. The answer is obvious, do you not agree?

CP:
Please set Art Work straight, JQ. As a critic, you know all about art.

JQ:
Let me first listen to what each of you has to say. That is what I do. I listen to an artwork, find out all I can about it, and then offer my observations. In a sense, I act as a mediator between the work and its recipients. I can do that for you two.

CP:
Bravo!

AW:
Yes, bravo. What a marvelous idea. I suggest that you go first Curious Person.

CP:
Why, thank you very much. My position is that an artwork must have three qualities. First, it must be visible; in other words, it must have physical form. Second, an artwork is crafted, the hand of the artist has to be present. Finally, an artwork is an object of aesthetic appreciation, it is sensual.

AW:
You are correct on only one point: that there are three qualities to an artwork. But, you are completely wrong about what they are.

CP:
Oh?

AW:
Yes. An artwork must be supported by an idea or concept. Then, an artwork must possess meaning. Third, it needs to be perceptible; similar to being visible, except that perception occurs in the mind, and seeing takes place with the eyes. I have concept, meaning, and perceptibility. Ergo, I am an artwork.

CP:
But, you can't be seen, there seems to be no craft involved in the making of you, and you are without a doubt anaesthetic. Ergo, you are not art.

AW:
Anaesthetic, humph. You make it seem that I put people to sleep.

JQ:
If I could offer a suggestion?

CP:
Yes, please do.

JQ:
You each make valid points, but they need to be examined one at a time. Or, rather, two at a time.

AW:
What do you mean?

JQ:
Each of the three components that Art Work cites has a corollary among the three components that Curious Person mentions. For instance, craft and concept.

AW:
Yes. I see that. And there is visuality and perception.

CP:
Plus aesthetic and meaning.

JQ:
Very good. I propose that you discuss each pair in turn.

AW:
That makes sense. Where shall we begin?

JQ:
How about craft and concept.

CP:
Fine with me. Art Work?

AW:
Call me AW. And, yes, that is agreeable, since concept is about where an artwork begins. Or craft, of course, depending upon whether one agrees with you or with me.

CP:
As though there could be any question.

AW:
As though there could.

Act II

[An empty room]

CP:
I can prove my point quite simply that an artwork is the result of craft. Oh, and please call me CP.

AW:
Thank you, I will. How do you intend to prove your position?

CP:
Your Artist made your plaque, am I not right?

AW:
Yes, you are not right.

CP:
I'm not?

AW:
My Artist gave me a name, and the museum made the plaque. In fact, my artist did not even ask for a plaque or write the words for it. That was the museum director's idea.

CP:
Well, your Artist must at least have painted the room or chosen the color.

AW:
Not at all. My Artist just asked the director to pick out any empty room, call its contents Air, and requested nothing else.

CP:
Ho-ho!

AW:
Ho-ho, what?

CP:
You have just proven my position for me.

AW:
I am a bit bewildered. Where is the craft? My artist did not carve or model or paint or draw me. My artist thought up the idea of me, which is far more important than anything else.

CP:
That may be, but you are first and foremost a product of crafting. An architect designed this room that contains you, as well as the building that encases the room. Skilled people cleared the land for the building and erected it. Painters painted the rooms' walls and cleaners cleaned it so that it wouldn't look shabby. (You don't want people saying your frame, so to speak, is unkempt, do you?) The museum director chose you for this exhibit, or rather, chose the room you inhabit. A designer designed the plaque over there, which a metalworker fabricated and somebody else mounted. It seems as though an awful lot of craft went into the making of you, although your Artist's contribution was minimal, to say the least. We could say that you are the result of a collaborative effort.

AW:
Humph. What you are talking about is nothing but mechanics. Anyone can be trained to do these things. Skilled manipulation of paint or wood or metal or stone and suchlike are no more than grunt labor, regardless of how well done they may be. Craft, since you are insistent upon craft, is little more than perspiration and technical virtuosity.

CP:
Making through craft is much more vital than that. If there is no making, a thing remains what it has been and never becomes art. A pebble found on the ground may be interesting to look at, even beautiful. But until the artist has stamped upon it his own vision by altering it in a substantive way, the pebble never transcends its mundane existence as a pebble. It may, in its natural state, be an object of aesthetic or even intellectual appreciation. It is most assuredly not art, however.

AW:
What you advocate is flower arranging.

CP:
Flower arranging!

AW:
Exactly. Your premise is that if a thing is snipped and trimmed and arranged it is therefore transformed into art. That is precisely what flower arranging is about.

CP:
Piffle.

AW:
Piffle, indeed.

JQ:
Now, now, you two. Go on Art Work.

AW:
Thank you JQ. To continue. Craft is all skin with no guts. Concept is the guts, the bone, and the sinew of art. It is what gives an artwork reason for being. A work such as I am is the innards of what art is. Eviscerate concept, rip it out of the work, and what remains? Only wallpaper. Surface prettiness.

CP:
Outrageous! How can you call craft wallpaper?

AW:
Because that is what it is. Wallpaper gives form to nothing. Without the supporting wall, the underlying concept, there is nothing worth giving form to (since you think form is so important). Art, obviously, is made in the mind, not with the hands. Even if it never left my Artist's brain, the idea of me would still be art.

CP:
Best that it should stay there, too.

AW:
Pardon?

CP:
Sorry, I was just muttering to myself.

AW:
Think nothing of it.

CP:
Exactly.

AW:
What?

CP:
It's nothing.

AW:
I don't understand.

CP:
Nothing. Art without form is nothing.

AW:
Nonsense.

CP:
If it was only thought, art could exist only when thought about and only in the mind of the thinker. Craft transforms concept (since you think concept is so important)

AW:

Are you trying to make a joke?

CP:
Who, me? As I said, craft transforms concept into the tangible. What do you think, JQ?

JQ:
I'll reserve my comments for later, if you don't mind.

CP:
Certainly. As I was saying, were we to scoop out concept and leave just an artwork's hide, there is still the facility of it's making left to fascinate us. It is that fascination that makes us want to stop and spend time with an artwork, to celebrate the accomplished hand of the artist who made it. And, unless we are compelled to stop and immerse ourselves in an artwork, any underlying concept is lost to disinterest. It's form is what makes an artwork wondrous to look upon. Art, in the final analysis, is a visual medium. That is why it is called visual art.

AW:
Aha! Now I see your plan.

CP:
I'm sure I dont know what you mean.

AW:
It is all about the fact that you cannot see me, is it not?

CP:
Of course not. But, since you bring it up

AW:
I bring it up? I knew it. See that, JQ. Your friend is a wily one.

JQ:
I detect wiliness in both of you. Still, perhaps it is time to take up a new topic.

Act III

[An empty room]

JQ:
Art Work, why don't you address the issue of perceptibility. And you, Curious Person, you can discuss visuality.

CP:
Gladly. As I've said before, art is meant to be seen. Unless an artwork can be seen, it's other primary qualities collapse into incomprehensible rubble.

AW:
Art is meant to be perceptible. Only when an artwork is perceptible is there something to mull over in the mind. Else, it is just a feather tickling the eyeballs.

CP:
Untrue. For one thing, the mind must have something to mull over. In art, the thing to be mulled over is what is apprehended through the eyes. Once the mind receives information from the eyes, it is able to contemplate the work. What information is available for the eyes from an entity like air? None.

AW:
The information is provided by the mind itself. It needs only to think of air, and then allow itself to explore the air-ness of air. Electrical impulses then fling themselves about the brain, contriving an understanding of what air is and of what it is for the person doing the thinking.

CP:
Contrived is right.

AW:
You have no imagination, CP.

CP:
And you have an overactive one. To apprehend an artwork like you, AW (and I use the term artwork very loosely in this instance), is a purely intellectual exercise. A well-done picture, on the other hand, excites the eyes and, through the eyes, arouses the soul. Art with color and line and movement and imagery claws at the eyes and thrusts into the psyche of our humanness. It is like a sumptuous banquet with the potential to elicit all possible thoughts and emotions, a banquet that makes the eyes salivate.

AW:
Oh, you make me cry from all this heady exposition.

CP:
Very funny, AW. Now, if I may go on?

AW:
By all means.

CP:
Without the vibrations it sends through the atmosphere, music is silence. Literature without words remains mute. So it is with art. Bereft of its visuality, it renders the viewer blind.

AW:
You are quite eloquent, and quite wrong. You speak of sight, CP, as though it is the means of apprehending an artwork. It is not. I cannot be seen at all (as you keep reminding us). Yet, when the idea of air as art is presented, the apprehender is compelled to think about air in new ways. True, one must work a little to appreciate air's implications, but the rewards are so much more meaningful than those gotten through the simple ease of looking at a picture. What results from looking is limited by the eyes' own limitations. What results from thinking is potentially infinite. I may not seem like much at first...

CP:
There's an understatement.

AW:
Please, stop that muttering. An artwork such as I is like sand swept by the surf along the shore. Initially, nothing seems to occur. But then, the sea deposits grain upon grain onto the beach until, over time, it grows and its shape noticeably changes until the beach takes on a new character. Ultimately, so much is gained that maps must be redrawn. Likewise, after thinking about an artwork of air for a while, it acquires an entirely new significance. A person becomes aware of breathing me and, soon, of how critical I am to life. One can immerse one's self in meditation of still air, of its quietude, its restfulness, or its spirituality. Thought of cold air reminds one of the chill of death. A searing blast of sizzling air inspires thoughts of rage or war. The possibilities are inexhaustible. I could go on endlessly.

CP:
Oh, heavens.

AW:
But, I will not.

CP:
Thank goodness. This is all very fanciful, AW. What youre suggesting is that the viewer or preceptor, to use your premise, you're suggesting that the preceptor create the artwork out of thin air. From your perspective the artist isn't even necessary.

AW:
Thin air! Thats not funny at all, CP.

CP:
I thought it was. Anyway, taking you on your own terms as air, I am not any more aware of you than I would be of the air outside. Which means, I wouldnt be aware of you at all, except that you talk. (How do you manage that without a mouth, by the way?)

AW:
What if I had an odor. What if I smelled like a gardenia or a sewer, would that make you feel better? Or, maybe I should move around a little and make a breeze. You would certainly be aware of that. After all, you yourself claimed that artwork must be sensual, and what could be more sensual than me patting you on the head as a soft breeze.

CP:
Aargh. You could be a raging hurricane and you still wouldnt be an artwork. Yes, I would be able to hear and feel you, and I might see the effects your motion produced. In those respects, at least, you would have an impact upon the human senses.

AW:
Aha! You admit, then, that I am an artwork.

CP:
I admit nothing of the kind. I'm only saying that I am more likely to notice you in some circumstances than in others, but not in any way differently than I would be aware of similar random events in nature. I might even engage in a dialog with your accidental sensual qualities, but not in the same way that I would respond to the directed sensual qualities of an artwork.

AW:
Dialog. Directed. You might think our conversation was a silly play put on for the amusement of some art students.

JQ:
My dear friends. You have, without realizing it I think, mixed aesthetic and meaning in with visuality and perceptibility.

AW:
Did we?

JQ:
You did.

CP:
I hadn't noticed.

JQ:
Yes. You, Curious Person, spoke of a well-done picture that excites the eyes. That is very much like aesthetic. And, Art Work, you mentioned things like spirituality and rage, which seem to me to have to do with the meaning of an artwork.

AW:
Oh, you are right.

CP:
Indeed, you are.

JQ:
So, would you like to continue in that direction?

AW:
Why not? Especially since the real experience of a work comes from the meaning found in it.

CP:
Not so. It comes from appreciation of its aesthetic.

Act IV

[An empty room]

AW:
Aesthetic is no more than how an artwork looks, its beauty. Who cares whether an artwork is beautiful or ugly, for that matter. It's all so superficial. When a work stimulates thought through its meaning its not very important what it may look like.

CP:
Thats easy for you to say. You dont look like anything.

AW:
Oh, you're going to bring that up again?

CP:
I would do no such thing.

JQ:
My friends, let us not regress.

AW:
Yes, let's not. To continue: An artwork doesn't require aesthetic in order to be appreciated. What it needs is meaning to be understood.

CP:
I must disagree. Meaning, if an artwork has one, is conveyed through aesthetic, within which meaning is enfolded. Without aesthetic, meaning cannot exist. Aesthetic, however, can stand on its own.

AW:
So, I am devoid of aesthetic according to you?

CP:
Without a doubt.

AW:
And, since I lack an aesthetic I must be without meaning. Is that your position?

CP:
I think we finally agree on something.

AW:
I think not. Consider this. I inhabit this room which is completely empty except for me, of course.

CP:
Arent you forgetting JQ and me?

AW:
No, not at all. If you were to take the time to reflect on the space of this room, the space that I occupy, and your place within it and within me, you would come to realize how really insignificant you are. Just a tiny speck in a vast cosmos of air.

CP:
Insignificant, indeed.

AW:
When you think about the air that surrounds you...

CP:
Youre referring to yourself, I assume.

AW:
Yes, to me. If you think about the me all around you - insubstantial, vaporous, elusive - you might conclude that existence itself is like me: that life cannot be understood, that an individual life has little effect upon the fabric of the universe, that it is that all existence is without purpose. Perhaps I am a metaphor for the transitory nature of life.

CP:
A metaphor for inanity is more like it.

AW:
Humph. As you can see, as you can tell, an artwork like me, with only meaning, is rich and full and far more stimulating to the mind than one with just aesthetic. Meaning in art brings a dispassionate and objective intellectual experience to the viewer, which is as it should be.

CP:
In order to understand you, though, requires an interpreter. Or, maybe a thick, scholarly tome crammed with obtuse language and elusive ideas. An artwork that possesses aesthetic value strikes into the very being of the recipient. It speaks to his humanity. There is an empathy between viewer and artwork that arises, creating an intimate bond that meaning alone can never achieve. An artwork embracing aesthetic can be appreciated and responded to. It is accessible. You, on the other hand, are impenetrable.

AW:
I beg your pardon. What could be more penetrable than air?

CP:
The vacuousness of your position?

AW:
Humph. You are simply too lazy to bother expending the effort to dig deeply into the purpose of an artwork. To enjoy the full richness of the meaning held within an artwork it must be examined internally inside yourself as well as inside the artwork.

CP:
So you want us all to be surgeons now, do you? What you propose is to dissect the work, dismantle it until all that remains is its unsympathetic detritus. That's a bit like unfolding and flattening out an origami crane into an ordinary sheet of paper. Yes, you might learn how it was made, its internal structure, its meaning, if you will. But in the process you will have destroyed its art-ness and its crane-ness. Not only will its aesthetic be lost, but so too would any meaning it may have contained. We would be left with nothing but a creased and purposeless bit of trash.

AW:
Its apparent you know nothing about recycling.

CP:
Ha-ha.

AW:
That bit of trash, as you call it, retains the imprint of the crane in those creases. It requires only an inquiring mind to...

JQ:
Excuse me, if I may interrupt? You have both presented your arguments well, and I really have heard enough

CP:
So have I.

JQ:
Ahem. I have heard enough to be able to offer some observations.

AW:
But, I have much more to say.

CP:
Actually, so do I.

JQ:
I am sure you both do. Still, I must leave shortly for an appointment with my psychotherapist, who I now sorely need to consult.

Act V

[An empty room]

JQ:
You have each made some interesting and intelligent comments, and I have learned much from you both.

AW:
That is good to hear.

CP:
You are too kind, JQ.

JQ:
Curious Person, what you describe are crafted objects intended primarily for reception through the eyes. What Art Work suggests are ideas communicated mentally that are intended for reception primarily through the intellect.

CP:
If you believe in ESP.

AW:
Ill ignore that.

JQ:
Ahem. As will I. The qualities you each enumerate constitute form and content, which all art possesses.

AW:
How so, JQ?

JQ:
Take craft and concept. Some artworks emerge from an idea

AW:
Aha! See.

JQ:
And others begin with the making and the idea coalesces as the artist progresses.

CP:
Aha, yourself, AW.

JQ:
But, without crafting, an idea acquires no form. Without the idea, craft has no direction. Simply put, an artist acts upon some material in order to produce art, and the artist develops an idea in order to know what form to give the crafting.

CP:
What about the viewer; does the viewer really need an artwork to have a concept?

JQ:
Yes, I believe so. It is enjoyable to admire how well a thing is crafted it lends fulfillment to the apprehension of the work and helps make the work palpable. Yet, the viewer also seeks the reason for the work having been made. Otherwise, it is as Art Work said, just pleasurable decoration.

CP:
Hmm. I suppose that could be true.

AW:
So, I am right.

JQ:
Not entirely, Art Work. For it is also as Curious Person stated: Unless a thing is crafted, the thing must always remain what it is. Even when the artist has an idea about a leaf, for example, unless the artist acts upon the leaf, the concept exists only in the artist's mind and the leaf keeps on being simply a leaf.

AW:
Then, I am only air, not art? Just a half-done artwork?

CP:
Half-baked is more like it.

JQ:
Ahem. I'm sorry to say that you may not be art, Art Work, at least on that count.

AW:
Alas. Sad day for me.

JQ:
Don't despair, Art Work, there is more. It is critical that a work be apprehended in some way, otherwise it might as well not exist. Art Work asserts that an artwork is perceived with the mind. Curious Person claims that an artwork is to be seen. There is some truth in what both of you say, for visuality and perceptibility are interdependent.

AW:
We are both right?

JQ:
Absolutely. Perception is recognition, the recognition of what a thing is and what are its characteristics. This occurs in the mind, but is made possible through reception of the thing by the senses. In the case of art it is the sense of sight. The eyes behold it, the brain understands it.

CP:
My word, Id not thought of it that way.

AW:
Nor I.

JQ:
Lastly, we have aesthetic and meaning. Aesthetic is the character of an artwork. It is a culmination of the personalities of the marks the artist has made, the materials chosen and how they are organized, and the particular nature of the image itself.

AW:
Such as?

JQ:
A picture of a landscape, an impression of motion, or a portrayal of a person, for example, and how it is represented. If it is a depiction of a person, what is the person doing? Is it standing relaxed and thoughtful, or is it contorted in agony? Such attributes contribute directly to how we understand a work. It is largely through a work's aesthetic that we ascribe to it a meaning.

CP:
There. It's exactly as I said: art requires aesthetic.

JQ:
Art also needs aboutness. It may be about the character of the thing depicted, or about some human feeling, or it could be a narrative. We turn to a work's aesthetic to help us fathom what the work is about, and the aesthetic arises from the work's meaning. The creative decisions the artist makes are on the basis of the work's intended message and out of aesthetic considerations.

AW:
Do you mean, then, that content cannot exist on its own?

JQ:
Not in an artwork.

CP:
And an artwork's form must convey content?

JQ:
Precisely.

CP:
And neither is more important that the other?

JQ:
Not in my opinion, no.

CP:
Hmm.

AW:
You said it, CP.

JQ:
Well, my friends, I really must go.

CP:
Oh, thats too bad. Thank you, JQ.

AW:
Yes, thank you.

JQ:
It has been my pleasure. Good-bye for now.

AW:
Fine friend, that JQ. And wise, as well.

CP:
Yes, indeed. I too must be on my way, I'm afraid. Perhaps I'll stop by again.

AW:
Please do. I have found you to be an interesting conversationalist.

CP:
As I have found you to be. So long.

AW:
Bye.

<Return to top>